Davis, Terrell Ladel, PD-1314-15

Davis was placed on four years of deferred adjudication for burglary of a habitation under Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(a).
State filed a petition to proceed to adjudication alleging failure to participate in treatment and drug use violations; Davis pled true to treatment, not true to drug use.
Trial court adjudicated guilt, sentenced Davis to ten years in TDCJ-CID, and included court costs and reparations in the judgment.
Judgment incorporated an Order to Withdraw Funds directing $468.80 be withdrawn from inmate trust funds; Davis did not object to costs in the trial court.
Second Court of Appeals modified and affirmed the judgment; Davis sought discretionary review challenging costs and constitutionality arguments.
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to address facial constitutionality of the costs statute and preservation issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Facial challenge to §133.102(a)(1) preserved?	Davis argues the statute is unconstitutional on its face.	State argues preservation failed in trial court; Johnson allows appellate consideration of costs.	Facial challenge forfeited; court overrules the challenge.

Landers v. State, 402 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (forfeiture rule for costs challenges when not objected to at trial)
Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (fathered preservation rule for costs on appeal)
Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (preservation of challenging financial resources to pay costs)
Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (facial challenges to statutes generally must be raised in trial court)
Ex parte Carson, 159 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1942) (separation of powers costs analysis (overruled by Peraza))